Thank you for the guidance you gave on my previous post. Those replies primarily addressed the issue of broken targets. But I am curious about how my trapshooters friends deal your rule VII-E-8 (pasted below).

8. When an “illegal” target is thrown, which is a target that is not within
the prescribed angle or height limits for single target shooting, or what
is known as a “flipper” or “freak” target is thrown, which is a target that
may have slipped out of the carrier of the trap or one notproperly placed
on the trap, provided the contestant does not fire at it. If the contestant
fires, the result must be scored.

Generally, twstrode, we just deal with it as it directs and we do a lot less of it than we once did.

When handset traps were more common, a "flipper" occurred when the target is not put on the arm right, or the "snubber" ran out of oil. Pat Traps, especially if they have an extended finger, may do it when a piece of broken target lodges under the finger but it doesn't happen all that much.

ALF-99 I am over 300,000 total ATA targets and I still shoot the wild ones now and then. Even worse, when a trap is throwing wide targets I begin to question if I will get one. Thinking that you might get an irregular target is usually worse than actually getting one.

Some people consider the 2 hole wide. Lets just go to the 1 hole. Wouldn't that be the logical progression? At some point we should be able to get everyones scores up to where they like them. Might take the 0 hole for some of them to get there. Along the way we can shorten them up some more. 40 yards minimum distance would help too. We could even do this under the excuse that its a membership drive.

I can see it now. Come home from a shoot and the wife asks how you shot and you have to reply, "Bad. I was one of only 5 that didn't break the 100. I missed one on the last trap." In an effort to console you she then says, "How many were there?" This cheers you up and you smile and say, "Now that you mention it, there was only 62 shooters!"

Southbend- Sorry, but your "logical progression" is faulty. Using your logic, 3 hole is better than 2 hole, so 4 hole would be even better and the 5 hole is next.

Another example that demonstrated the fault of your logic. If a physician gives you a pill and tells you one a day would be good. Then you conclude that two a day would be better and 4 a day would be better than two.

Lets just stay with the progression we have experienced a possible first step of, which was 3 hole to 2 hole. Not a looney hypothetical pill taking one out of a 3rd. graders book. By the way, I never said the 3 was better than the 2. That was your misguided assumption.

Must have been somthing I said about the weaker shooters trying to get their scores up anyway possible that set you off. I bet your toes quit hurting before next year........